|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
 Posted - 10/24/2009 : 03:58:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
| You're saying that New Atheism promotes atheism as a conclusion, not axiomatic? I don't know that there is a universal consensus on that within the proponents of what has been dubbed by the media "New Atheism", but certainly some imply with much of their language that atheism is the default position since no evidence for God is rational and convincing. |
You're mistaking a null hypothesis for what Kurtz calls a "first principle." The fact that the "New Atheists" are willing to entertain evidence in favor of the God hypothesis at all means that they don't consider the absence of God to be an axiom. To be dogmatic, one must ignore the evidence, not ask for and evaluate it. |
The idea that one should "assume nonexistence of X for all X yet to be demonstrated" may be an axiom. Since it is neither proven nor subject to change, axiom seems a valid characterization of that statement.
However, while the specific case of the assumption of the nonexistence of god (interchange spaghetti monster, celestial teapot, pink elephant) is deduced from this axiom, this specific assumption is in fact subject to change upon evidence given, and therefore, cannot be an axiom itself. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
| Edited by - Machi4velli on 10/24/2009 03:59:59 |
 |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2009 : 08:41:22 [Permalink]
|
Responses to Dave: | "Dogmatic" people are characterized by few of the traits you suggest, for one thing. For another, most of the "Four Horsemen" of the "New Atheists" are characterized by, if anything, a willingness to be shown that they are wrong. |
I’ve already said that Dennett doesn’t belong in the camp that has been criticized, and I have yet to read a criticism of Dennett’s work directly which comes from another prominent atheist. Again, the media invented the term “New Atheism” and that term has come to mean aggressive and mean-spirited attacks on all religion and anti-religious sentiment. When Kurtz speaks about people who are embittered because they’ve been hurt by religion and who are reacting out of that pain he is obviously not talking about the four horsemen. But the writings of at least Harris, Hitchens, and Dawkins have attracted many atheists with such characteristics to the secular movement and they are shaping that movement.
| Show them that God exists, and they'll quit being atheists. Show them that there is something unique and intrinsic to religion which conveys a benefit to humanity, and they'll stop making blanket criticisms of faith. Dawkins thinks that "there is no God" rates a 6.7 on a 7-point "truth" scale, yet he's routinely accused of the holding most-extreme atheistic position in which there couldn't possibly be a God, ever. And this is dogmatism to you? |
What atheists have routinely accused Dawkins of “holding the most extreme atheist position in which there couldn’t possibly be a God.”? And when did I ever say that is what is meant by the accusations of being “dogmatic”?
When someone writes something that is marketed to the best seller list, and when one makes oneself a figure in the mainstream public, surprise surprise – anything really complex and sophisticated one says will be misunderstood, misrepresented, and the whole message will be simplified and twisted by both enemies and fans. The so-called “accomodationalists” such as Kurtz, Epstein, and even Chris Mooney aren’t trying to just be nice to everyone, and they don’t regard the four horsemen to be the atheist equivalents to Pat Robertson. These atheist leaders are dedicating their lives and careers to the secular movement, and they are concerned about tactics which they see as doing more harm than good to the public image of people with a secular worldview.
| Yes, it makes a point about the hypocrisy of the "everyone should be nice to one another" atheists. |
Here you use exactly the same kind of hyperbole that Kurtz used in the “calling everyone idiots” comment which you tried to claim was an accusation of being irrational.
| They're trying so hard to appease the religious that they sling vile slanders at atheists with whom they don't agree on the quantity or quality of religious failures. |
None of the atheists who have criticized “New Atheism” have been “vile” or “slanderous” in their attacks. The only real slander has come from religious leaders, and usually the socially conservative ones, not often our social and political allies. And we’re not trying to “appease” the religious. If you really think that’s the motivation, then you are not making any honest attempts to understand the other side of the debate.
| Thus proving my point about you needing a decent dictionary. Look at those definitions. The first two have a laser-like focus on Protestant fundamentalism, while the third is as broad as possible. Are the characteristics that Protestant fundamentalism, Islamic fundamentalism and even Catholic fundamentalism shareonly "strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles?" No, they go well beyond that. Obviously not so deeply as the first two definitions, but the idea that since Kurtz can't mean them he must mean the third defintion from a resource as clearly as shallow as dictionary.com is ludicrous. |
It isn’t ludicrous if you look at what Kurtz says about “New Atheism” in context. Over and over again it becomes clear that his real beef is with tone and tactics. Instead of just jumping on two terms “atheist fundamentalist” and “dogmatic” try reading the overall criticism and honestly try to understand what criticisms are being made.
| Of course you did. You said that the defining characteristic of fundamentalism was self-righteousness, which is much less of a personality flaw for a critical thinker than fanaticism or dogmatism. |
Critical thinkers do not have a built-in hierarchy of what accusations they will personally find more or less insulting. Calling someone self-righteous is disparaging. Thus, I repeat: I never denied that the critics of New Atheism were using the term "atheist fundamentalist" in a disparaging way.
| How many of the "New Atheists" profess to be Kurtzian-style secular humanists, anyway? Do any of the "Four Horsemen" belong to any humanist organization(s)? |
Dawkins is vice-president of the British Humanist Association and a signer of the latest version of the Humanist Manifesto, published by the American Humanist Association. He’s also accepted several honors and awards from Humanist organizations. Dennett allowed his photograph to be used in ads for the American Humanist Association with the phrase “I’m a humanist” beside his picture. He also accepted the 2004 Humanist of the Year award.
I’ll get more redundant if I keep responding point by point to the rest of your last post. My main points can be summarized as:
-I agree that the term “atheist fundamentalist” does nothing to improve the conversation, but not because I think it is inaccurate, but rather, because it inflames emotions to the point that meaningful discussion is lost. In that sense, yes, Paul Kurtz is hypocritical for using that term.
-The debate among secular leaders (simplified as “New Atheism” vs. “New Humanism”) is way overblown by many observers within atheist/humanist/skeptic communities. Most of it is spirited debate which reflects well on the health of our movement and in fact the opponents consider each other to be on the same team. These debates are something to be proud of and celebrate, not something that we should let divide our communities on the ground with feelings of resentment and betrayal.
-I don’t think that term of “dogmatic” has been meant by atheist critics of “New Atheism” to mean anything nearly as extreme as has been assumed by those who are taking such huge offense to the term. I think both terms were meant to refer to a tone and tactics.
-The label “New Atheism” is problematic in-of-itself because “New Atheists” can both refer to the figureheads of that media concoction (the “Four Horsemen” – who don’t even represent any unified approach or position on the matter, they just happened to publish best selling books questioning and/or attacking religious faith at the same time) and the following inspired by the media success of those figureheads, which can tend to be far less sophisticated, intelligent, fruitful, and civil than the four horsemen are in their approach.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 10/24/2009 08:41:46 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2009 : 08:44:15 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrote: Dodge a little more, you are almost out of the way of your own illogic there.
I'm not talking about just sayiing you are "skeptical" of their religion. But hey, you know that, that's why you are dodging so hard with that post.
Next time you are having a conversation with a true(tm) believer, ask them if they are offended when an atheist says they are 100% in error for claiming their holy book is the only source of morality, or if it offends them when some atheist says that their deity is a figment of their imagination with absolutely no evidence to support it's existence. |
It is enough for me to state clearly that I don’t accept their supernatural claims. There is no good reason to emphasize my disagreement with their beliefs with random qualifiers and phrases loaded with derogatory associations. Doing that would only inflame the religious person’s emotions, thus decreasing my chance of getting my viewpoint across to their intellect.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2009 : 08:44:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
The idea that one should "assume nonexistence of X for all X yet to be demonstrated" may be an axiom. Since it is neither proven nor subject to change, axiom seems a valid characterization of that statement. |
Is the proverbial "scientific method" an axiom? Because that's the correct characterization. If the hypothesis is "X exists" and we can find no evidence in support of that hypothesis, then it fails and we should tentatively conclude (not "assume") that X does not exist.
If we assume pragmatic realism, then the scientific method is not axiomatic, and the hypothesis that the scientific method works (in the sense that it reliably produces answers that appear to be correct in context) has been tested a gazillion times and has been shown to be true.
But pragmatic realism doesn't include "there is no God" as an axiom, either.| However, while the specific case of the assumption of the nonexistence of god (interchange spaghetti monster, celestial teapot, pink elephant) is deduced from this axiom, this specific assumption is in fact subject to change upon evidence given, and therefore, cannot be an axiom itself. |
That's right, except for the substitution of "conclusion" with "assumption." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2009 : 11:26:10 [Permalink]
|
I was reading more about the New Atheism/Humanism debate and came across this Washington Post article. What I thought was worth mentioning in this conversation is yet a third assumption or interpretation or whatever you want to call it of the defining characteristic of "fundamentalism": http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/25/AR2007052501953.html | Distinguishing between strong opinion and trying to impose atheism on others, Phil Zuckerman, associate professor of sociology at Pitzer College in Claremont, Calif., also finds "fundamentalist" a misnomer. Instead, he faults atheists for preferring black-and-white simplicity to a more nuanced view of religion. |
In the part in bold, Zuckerman seems to think fundamentalism is defined by an attempt to impose itself on everyone. But a lot of fundamentalist Christians keep to their own and aren't politically mobilized. Of course I'm not sure what Zuckerman means since at least the major figures in "New Atheism" don't seek to impose atheism on others. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2009 : 11:59:25 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Of course I'm not sure what Zuckerman means since at least the major figures in "New Atheism" don't seek to impose atheism on others.
|
Right. Apparently atheists aren't allowed to consider their position the strongest without being accused of "arrogance," think themselves correct without being accused of "stridency," wish others were more rational without being accused of "proselytizing," point out irrationality when they see it in others without being accused of "fundamentalism," or want to see the influence of religion diminished without being accused of being a follower of a religion.
| I agree that the term “atheist fundamentalist” does nothing to improve the conversation, but not because I think it is inaccurate, but rather, because it inflames emotions to the point that meaningful discussion is lost. In that sense, yes, Paul Kurtz is hypocritical for using that term. |
Except all of these commonly hurled accusations are inaccurate. You defend them on the grounds that they aren't linguistically incoherent--that you can find a reading which presents some criticism which isn't completely nonsensical. But these still aren't accurate criticisms by any stretch of the imagination, Marf.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 10/24/2009 13:04:23 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2009 : 13:19:57 [Permalink]
|
Humbert wrote: | Apparently atheists aren't allowed to consider their position the strongest without being accused of "arrogance," |
Christopher Hitchens is not only famous for his arrogance, he wears it like a badge of honor.
| think themselves correct without being accused of "stridency," |
I don’t see how anyone can read Harris’s and Hitchen’s writings about religion without finding it “strident.”
| wish others were more rational without being accused of "proselytizing," |
The very title of Sam Harris’s “Letter to a Christian Nation” makes it clear that he is addressing those who disagree with him. In that book he states his goal “to demolish the intellectual and moral pretensions of Christianity in its most committed forms.” If that isn’t proselytizing, I don’t know what is.
| point out irrationality when they see it in others without being accused of "fundamentalism," |
Seeing how Kurtz has spent much of his career pointing out irrationality in others I think it is safe to say that it isn’t that they are pointing out irrationality, but rather HOW they point it out.
From “The God Delusion” (my emphasis in bold) | “There is something breathtakingly condescending, as well as inhumane, about the sacrificing of anyone, especially children, on the altar of ‘diversity’ and the virtue of preserving a variety of religious traditions. The rest of us are happy with our cars and computers, vaccines and antibiotics. But you quaint little people with your bonnets and breeches, your horse buggies, your archaic dialect and your earth-closet privies, you enrich our lives. Of course you must be allowed to trap your children with you in your seventeenth-century time warp, otherwise something irretrievable would be lost to us: a part of the wonderful diversity of human culture. A small part of me can see something in this. But the larger part is made to feel very queasy indeed.” |
In both the “God Delusion” and “The Root of All Evil?” he calls it “child abuse” to raise a child with a particular belief system. Now it makes me queasy to think of children being raised in strict and sheltered religious homes, but I still think the parents have the right to live that life style and raise their kids that way. But the way Dawkins phrases his criticism here, he certainly seems to be suggesting that some kind of action be taken to protect these children. That’s more than mere talk and intellectual discussion.
Likewise, consider this famous quote from Harris: | People who harbor strong convictions without evidence belong at the margins of our societies, not in our halls of power. |
In practice, this would seem to encourage discrimination against even moderately religious people in selecting leaders in politics, businesses, and other institutional spheres, even if their religion has never played any apparently role outside of their personal life.
| or want to see the influence of religion diminished without being accused of being a follower of a religion. |
No atheists are accusing them of being followers of a religion.
The strident, arrogant way in which Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris assert their positions that religion does much harm and no good and the world would be altogether better without it period is why so many people love as well as hate them. Hitchens’s crassly yet creatively-phrased rants (and they are rants) are cathartic. Harris’s “End of Faith” provided a point of view which was refreshing when it came out. And Dawkins, well Dawkins is just brilliant and has a long career of fabulous best sellers which came out long before the “God Delusion.” He’s just a giant in the movement with a powerful reputation that it would be hard to demolish, even if he occasionally says or writes things which seem over the top. Denying that aspects of these men’s approaches can be accurately characterized as arrogant, strident, or aiming to actually change societal norms and possibly some laws (opposed to just having a harmless conversation) just seems silly to me.
| Except all of these commonly hurled accusations are inaccurate. You defend them on the grounds that they aren't linguistically incoherent--that you can find a reading which presents some criticism beyond empty name calling. But these still aren't accurate criticisms by any stretch of the imagination, Marf. |
I already quoted a dictionary definition which fit with what had already been my interpretation of the term “fundamentalist” as it was applied to atheists, so even if you think it is a lame definition, apparently the people who wrote that dictionary definition were able to stretch their imaginations at least that far.
Look, I agree that calling "New Atheism" a sort of fundamentalism isn't productive and just muddles the conversation. But much of the angry responses to that accusation are just as if not more ridiculous than concept of "atheist fundamentalism". Many people fail to see that all of this "controversy" didn't come from deep, intellectual debates, but rather out of the media-speak of press releases as well as public posturing as well as some debates over minor points among friends within the secular movement. This has been so thrown out of proportion, mostly online by bloggers (such as PZ who said that anyone who uses the phrase "atheist fundamentalist" doesn't understand what either of those words means and then resorted to calling anyone who used the phrase a "moron." So I guess Paul Kurtz, the "father of secular humanism" is a moron.) http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/04/so_what_should_we_ornery_athei.php |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2009 : 14:19:25 [Permalink]
|
marfknox said:
| The strident, arrogant way in which Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris assert their positions that religion does much harm and no good and the world would be altogether better without |
You need to go back and qualify that statement with either evidence to back the claim or a big "IMO".
Because I disagree completely. The strident and arrogant way those three present their position has boosted the atheism/religion debate into the public arena, given it national media attention, and serves as a very public example that people don't need to hide their atheism.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2009 : 14:37:35 [Permalink]
|
Dude, I fucked up my grammar. I wrote:
| The strident, arrogant way in which Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris assert their positions that religion does much harm and no good and the world would be altogether better without it period is why so many people love as well as hate them. |
Here's how that was supposed to read:
The strident, arrogant way in which Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris assert their positions (their positions being that religion does much harm and no good and the world would be altogether better without it, period) is why so many people love as well as hate them.
I wasn't saying that their positions would be better without their sometimes strident and arrogant tones - I was giving them credit.
Their tone most certainly has boosted the atheism/religion debate into the public arena, given it national media attention, and proven that out-atheists can do just fine under the light of public scrutiny. As I've said at least twice now in the conversation, I think debate and dissent among secularists is very good for the secular community and movement and is something we should be proud of, and we couldn't have that debate and dissent without the "New Atheists." I'm grateful for them as much as I'm grateful for Kurtz, Epstein, and Mooney for voicing their criticism. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 10/24/2009 14:38:43 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2009 : 19:05:56 [Permalink]
|
Ok then.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2009 : 19:57:07 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Responses to Dave: | "Dogmatic" people are characterized by few of the traits you suggest, for one thing. For another, most of the "Four Horsemen" of the "New Atheists" are characterized by, if anything, a willingness to be shown that they are wrong. |
I’ve already said that Dennett doesn’t belong in the camp that has been criticized, and I have yet to read a criticism of Dennett’s work directly which comes from another prominent atheist. |
Well, there's David Sloan Wilson.| What atheists have routinely accused Dawkins of “holding the most extreme atheist position in which there couldn’t possibly be a God.”? |
That's what most atheists are referring to when they talk about Dawkin's "arrogance." But if he admits to a possibility of a God, what's arrogant about his arguments?| And when did I ever say that is what is meant by the accusations of being “dogmatic”? |
You didn't. I was using it as an example.| When someone writes something that is marketed to the best seller list, and when one makes oneself a figure in the mainstream public, surprise surprise – anything really complex and sophisticated one says will be misunderstood, misrepresented, and the whole message will be simplified and twisted by both enemies and fans. The so-called “accomodationalists” such as Kurtz, Epstein, and even Chris Mooney aren’t trying to just be nice to everyone, and they don’t regard the four horsemen to be the atheist equivalents to Pat Robertson. |
No, Mooney reserves that sort of comparison for PZ Myers.| These atheist leaders are dedicating their lives and careers to the secular movement, and they are concerned about tactics which they see as doing more harm than good to the public image of people with a secular worldview. |
I understand that, but you understand that they won't get far by insulting the out-and-loud atheists, either. And Mooney's doing nothing for the secular movement, he's just trying to sell a book.| Yes, it makes a point about the hypocrisy of the "everyone should be nice to one another" atheists. |
Here you use exactly the same kind of hyperbole that Kurtz used in the “calling everyone idiots” comment which you tried to claim was an accusation of being irrational. |
What hyperbole is that?| None of the atheists who have criticized “New Atheism” have been “vile” or “slanderous” in their attacks. |
How can you say that when you agree that "atheist fundamentalist" is a conversation-stopper? It ends civil discussion because it is vile and slanderous, your redefinition not withstanding.| The only real slander has come from religious leaders, and usually the socially conservative ones, not often our social and political allies. |
Slander would come from conservative religious leaders even if the "New Atheists" didn't exist. Whether PZ drives a nial through a communion wafer or just says, "I think the idea of transubstantiation should be re-examined," Bill Donohue would categorize both as blood libels against the Catholic Church. So those sorts of people are actually irrelevant to this discussion, since there's no pleasing them.| And we’re not trying to “appease” the religious. If you really think that’s the motivation, then you are not making any honest attempts to understand the other side of the debate. |
Oh, good grief! Appeasement isn't the motivation, it's one of the political tools being used. If you really don't understand that, then it's you who aren't making an honest attempt to understand any of the debate.| It isn’t ludicrous if you look at what Kurtz says about “New Atheism” in context. Over and over again it becomes clear that his real beef is with tone and tactics. Instead of just jumping on two terms “atheist fundamentalist” and “dogmatic” try reading the overall criticism and honestly try to understand what criticisms are being made. |
This discussion was about whether Kurtz deserves a hearing on any other points after using the insult "atheist fundamentalist."| Dawkins is vice-president of the British Humanist Association and a signer of the latest version of the Humanist Manifesto, published by the American Humanist Association. He’s also accepted several honors and awards from Humanist organizations. Dennett allowed his photograph to be used in ads for the American Humanist Association with the phrase “I’m a humanist” beside his picture. He also accepted the 2004 Humanist of the Year award. |
Ah, well then. The absolute nicest of the so-called "New Atheists" is a humanist.I’ll get more redundant if I keep responding point by point to the rest of your last post. My main points can be summarized as:
-I agree that the term “atheist fundamentalist” does nothing to improve the conversation, but not because I think it is inaccurate, but rather, because it inflames emotions to the point that meaningful discussion is lost. In that sense, yes, Paul Kurtz is hypocritical for using that term. |
It inflames emotions because it is inaccurate. There are plenty of examples of these folks saying, "yes, I've been very strident" in response to being called "strident." Criticism isn't lost on them, but insults piss them off.| -The debate among secular leaders (simplified as “New Atheism” vs. “New Humanism”) is way overblown by many observers within atheist/humanist/skeptic communities. Most of it is spirited debate which reflects well on the health of our movement and in fact the opponents consider each other to be on the same team. These debates are something to be proud of and celebrate, not something that we should let divide our communities on the ground with feelings of resentment and betrayal. |
Tell that to Paul Kurtz.| -I don’t think that term of “dogmatic” has been meant by atheist critics of “New Atheism” to mean anything nearly as extreme as has been assumed by those who are taking such huge offense to the term. I think both terms were meant to refer to a tone and tactics. |
"Dogmatic" generally means "unwilling to change in the face of evidence that one's position is wrong." It is a criticism that has nothing to do with tone and tactics, and everything to do (generally) with the people using the word not putting forth a strong case.| -The label “New Atheism” is problematic in-of-itself because “New Atheists” can both refer to the figureheads of that media concoction (the “Four Horsemen” – who don’t even represent any unified approach or position on the matter, they just happened to publish best selling books questioning and/or attacking religious faith at the same time) and the following inspired by the media success of those figureheads, which can tend to be far less sophisticated, intelligent, fruitful, and civil than the four horsemen are in their approach. |
And I thought it was clear, in context, who we were referring to when using the term: the same people Kurtz was calling "atheist fundamentalists."
In another post of yours, I find your individual examples in response to H. generalizing amusing. You seem to be missing the point there. Also:| In that book he states his goal “to demolish the intellectual and moral pretensions of Christianity in its most committed forms.” If that isn’t proselytizing, I don’t know what is. |
If Harris were trying to make atheists of people instead of just destroying there pretensiousness, then he'd be proselytizing.| In both the “God Delusion” and “The Root of All Evil?” he calls it “child abuse” to raise a child with a particular belief system. Now it makes me queasy to think of children being raised in strict and sheltered religious homes, but I still think the parents have the right to live that life style and raise their kids that way. |
Why? What gives them the right to indoctrinate their children with screwball religious nonsense, but not give them alcohol and cigarettes? What makes it okay for me to teach my child that homosexuals are an abomination and should be treated as such (an attitude which causes demonstrable harm to society), while it's not okay to beat the kid when he does his homework wrong?| But the way Dawkins phrases his criticism here, he certainly seems to be suggesting that some kind of action be taken to protect these children. That’s more than mere talk and intellectual discussion. |
Heh. Yeah, it is. But that's not why he's called an atheist fundamentalist, either. That term is used - by atheists - simply because Dawkins is willing to call religion irrational.| In practice, this would seem to encourage discrimination against even moderately religious people in selecting leaders in politics, businesses, and other institutional spheres, even if their religion has never played any apparently role outside of their personal life. |
Sure does. Why shouldn't we discriminate against people who embrace irrationality as political and business leaders? Doesn't it make sense to fill those seats with the most rational people we can find? (By the way, Tony Blair has said that he hid his religion because he thought he wouldn't have been selected as Prime Minister if more people had known about his faith, so perhaps Britain is doing the discrimination bit correctly.)| No atheists are accusing them of being followers of a religion. |
Good grief, that's the primary connotation - the discussion-stopper - behind the term "atheist fundamentalist!"| Denying that aspects of these men’s approaches can be accurately characterized as arrogant, strident, or aiming to actually change societal norms and possibly some laws (opposed to just having a harmless conversation) just seems silly to me. |
The term "atheist fundamentalist" encapsulates none of those characteristics, except secondarily. Those men don't deny that they're just those things, but then someone like Kurtz will pull the "atheist fundamentalist" canard out in order to insult them.| Many people fail to see that all of this "controversy" didn't come from deep, intellectual debates, but rather out of the media-speak of press releases as well as public posturing as well as some debates over minor points among friends within the secular movement. This has been so thrown out of proportion, mostly online by bloggers... |
Actually, the "atheist fundamentalist" insult does the most harm when it comes from people like Paul Kurtz. Religious people can be expected to see everyone else as religious. That's simple psychological projection. But when the "father of secular humanism" calls another award-winning humanist an "atheist fundamentalist," it means the gloves have come off.| ...(such as PZ who said that anyone who uses the phrase "atheist fundamentalist" doesn't understand what either of those words means and then resorted to calling anyone who used the phrase a "moron." So I guess Paul Kurtz, the "father of secular humanism" is a moron.) |
And there's the "smart once, smart always" fallacy. But by your own statements, marf, Kurtz is definitely a moron if his goal was further discussion "among friends" when he used the term "atheist fundamentalist." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2009 : 20:02:35 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
I'm grateful for them as much as I'm grateful for Kurtz, Epstein, and Mooney for voicing their criticism. |
Mooney's not interested in voicing criticism, he's trying to sell a book. The evidence that his goal is financial is that he's unwilling to honestly address any of the criticisms of his "criticism." If there's a review of his book that says some good things and some bad things, he will inevitably focus of the good and ignore the bad. If the same bad things are said in a wholly bad review, Mooney will respond by missing the point and attacking the reviewer. Mooney is a horrible example to use. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2009 : 20:41:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by marfknox
No atheists are accusing them of being followers of a religion. |
Good grief, that's the primary connotation - the discussion-stopper - behind the term "atheist fundamentalist!" |
Seriously, wtf Marf? Do you honestly think it's coincidence that most of the disparaging terms used to describe atheists have primarily religious connotations? Fundamentalist. Dogmatic. Proselyting. Oh, and let's not forget "militant," a term used by both E.O Wilson and Michael Ruse in that Washington Post article you linked.
So we're to believe that none of these words are trying to compare outspoken atheists to religious fanatics? As with your defense of the word "fundamentalist," we're supposed to assume that in each instance a disparaging term was used, it was the 3rd, 4th, or even 5th definition listed in the dictionary that was the intended meaning? So it's completely accidental then that they all have religious connotations as their primary definition. No pattern there, just complete coincidence. What could lead anyone to assume that a comparison to religion was being made? Ludicrous!
Come on, Marf. They clearly are saying that the New Atheists have created a cult of personality, a religion, and not a movement based on true skepticism. It's not just a criticism of the tone of our message, but of the personal motivations and mental clarity of those within the movement. Kurtz and the other critics are quite clearly indicating that they think we're behaving irrationally, on emotion and without thought exactly like brainwashed, religious, zealous, militant terrorists who want to impose their will on others through force. That's some pretty insulting shit for a group of people whose claimed goal is to avoid offending anyone.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 10/24/2009 20:43:20 |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 10/25/2009 : 02:27:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Machi4velli
The idea that one should "assume nonexistence of X for all X yet to be demonstrated" may be an axiom. Since it is neither proven nor subject to change, axiom seems a valid characterization of that statement. |
Is the proverbial "scientific method" an axiom? Because that's the correct characterization. If the hypothesis is "X exists" and we can find no evidence in support of that hypothesis, then it fails and we should tentatively conclude (not "assume") that X does not exist. |
I don't know that I would use the word conclude, maybe not assume either, but I don't presume to know anything about the truth value of the statement. By assumption, I meant that I act as if the statement is false, but I know I have no confirmation that this position is true, maybe assumption is the wrong word? I do think we should be quite modest in our claims to knowledge, but I have a feeling I'm not very far away from your position.
| If we assume pragmatic realism, then the scientific method is not axiomatic, and the hypothesis that the scientific method works (in the sense that it reliably produces answers that appear to be correct in context) has been tested a gazillion times and has been shown to be true. |
How can we evaluate the validity of the scientific method, and indefinite continuation of this validity, by using the scientific method? |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/25/2009 : 07:19:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
I don't know that I would use the word conclude, maybe not assume either, but I don't presume to know anything about the truth value of the statement. By assumption, I meant that I act as if the statement is false, but I know I have no confirmation that this position is true, maybe assumption is the wrong word? I do think we should be quite modest in our claims to knowledge, but I have a feeling I'm not very far away from your position. |
We make tentative conclusions, always subject to re-evaluation should new, relevant evidence happen to be found.| How can we evaluate the validity of the scientific method, and indefinite continuation of this validity, by using the scientific method? |
The key is, again, pragmatic realism. It seems like we are able to gain knowledge, so we look, historically, at which epistemology has been the most successful (providing knowledge which leads, logically and reliably, to more knowledge). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Kurtz ousted from CFI
